I found this group on the internet called the hybrid children community. This is a group of women (mainly in their 20s) who think that aliens abducted them, had mind blowing sex with them knocking them up, and then took their hybrid human-alien children away from them. (No, this is not an April Fools joke, but it should be.)

The women in the hybrid children community are incapable of having relationships with men. This should be a surprise to no one. While many men are willing to stick their dick into crazy, no man is that hard up that he won’t run in the other direction when meeting one of these women. I’m certain that these women were just as insane before “discovering” that aliens were abducting them to have hybrid babies. This is what happens to women who don’t get attention from men. Thanks to MGTOW, the marriage strike, and so forth, more women will join the hybrid children community so that they can enjoy the delusion that alien men desire them. I think I can speak for aliens everywhere when I say that alien men don’t want these women too.

There’s this feminist science fiction movie called Advantageous. Among other things in the movie, women are increasingly becoming homeless because women can’t get jobs. The stated reason for this in the movie is that jobs have been destroyed due to technology and since unemployed men are more likely to start revolutions. Thus it makes more sense to employ men.

This is a good example of how feminist science fiction is a failure. While preventing revolutions might be the stated reason for not giving women jobs in the future, it’s not the real reason. The real reason is a combination of women’s work being automated, men being more productive, and men not creating problems in the workplace such as frivolous lawsuits like women do.

On top of this the movie doesn’t address why women (or more women) just don’t become stay at home mothers. That’s because feminists can’t understand the marriage strike or MGTOW. What has happened in this movie (even though it can’t explain it) is that the marriage strike has reached critical mass, MGTOW has greatly expanded, and employers have been forced to stand up to women. The widespread homelessness of women in this movie is not due to misogyny. It’s because women’s behavior towards men has been so vile that both men and employers want nothing to do with them. Of course, a feminist science fiction movie can’t understand this.

A lot of people think that polygamy will be the next marriage related political issue. It won’t be. If the articles above are anything to go by, it will be women trying to use the courts to rope men into marrying them or providing marriage like benefits by force. The complaints in the articles above come from women who are angry that the gay marriage political debate wasn’t about them. They’re going to do their best to avoid that happening again so expect polygamists or anyone else who can’t currently get married to be drowned out by the whining of women.

Since today is father’s day, I added a new page about how fatherhood and not marriage is essential for civilization. I’m disabling comments on this post because all of the content is on the new page. Follow the link or click on the tab at the top of the blog to read the page and comment on it.

If the article has any truth to it, most young men will not want anything to do with marriage. All the shaming language from tradcons, which are functionally equivalent to the UN sending strongly worded letters, can not compete with the desire of most men not to be cuckolded. The harshest shaming language from tradcons pales in comparison to the current disaster marriage is right now. If cuckolding becomes more commonplace then the difference only becomes greater.

Tradcons are fighting a battle they can’t win. If a man’s options are being cuckolded or having to occasionally listen to impotent shaming language from tradcons, nearly all men will choose not to be cuckolded.

InfoWars/PrisonPlanet (Alex Jones’s websites) released a youtube video about something called neomasculinity:

I noticed several things about the video. While it used game language and other language from this part of the internet, it’s clear that whoever wrote the script for that video didn’t really understand what we talk about. MGTOW gets attacked (which has led to responses from MGTOW like Barbarossa). Overall, this is another attempt at entryism by tradcons with some game terms used as an unsuccessful attempt to hide that it is an attempt at entryism.

This is nothing new. It’s just another form of Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0, an attempt to repackage game for the benefit of women (and in this case Alex Jones’s bank account). This is the same thing Susan Walsh, the Manhood Academy/Manhood 101 morons, and others have tried and failed to do. This time it has a dash of, “you have to get married because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!” (which is why believing in the depopulation agenda is misandry) and “They (whoever they is) are putting chemicals in the water to turn you gay”, but it’s really no different. It’s an extreme form of the tradcon cry, “You have to get married to save civilization”.

I am certain that Alex Jones’s attempt at entryism will fail. We have dealt with entryist tradcons before. Tradcons have nothing to offer game, MGTOW (or the M(H)RM) so neither does Alex Jones. No one is impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization”, so no one will be impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!” We may see a few guys planning on pulling a Mark Minter use neomasculinity as a cover, but that will be it. We don’t need Mark Minters so good riddance to them.

The more tradcons attack MGTOW, the more popular it becomes. Let Alex Jones attack MGTOW and try his attempt at entryism. He will fail, and MGTOW will be more popular afterwards.

Today is Memorial Day in the US which means its a day to remember those who have died in war. What group has died in war more than any other group? Men, in particular young men, and many young men died as nothing more than cannon fodder.

The modern equivalent of cannon fodder does not involve drafting men to die in wars. The modern equivalent of cannon fodder is attempting to get young men to follow gynocentric scripts for the benefit of women which involves getting married and/or having men’s income transferred to women via taxes and government spending. The tradcons, the feminists, and other groups are all guilty of trying use young men as cannon fodder. It’s not an exaggeration to say that all of these groups want to use young men as cannon fodder. They want young men to do things that in the best case scenario not in their best interests and in the worst case scenario will involve losing your assets and your children, and being thrown in prison.

In online parlance, “MGTOW” basically refers to any man who’s off-script. There are many scripts out there.

The tradcon / white nationalist script: bust your ass and remain celibate, then marry some supposedly good and worthy Christian “virgin”, move to some rural area, have lots of kids and homeschool them, grow your own food and brag about your lifestyle on the Internet.

The feminist script: bust your ass and have egalitarian relationships with feminist women based on mutual respect, marry an ageing spinster or single mother, have 1 or 2 children and indoctrinate them with feminism, move to the suburbs, pay off your wife’s debts, brag about it all on the Internet and then tearfully claim it’s all your fault when she frivorces you and ruins your life.

The MHRA script: bust your ass and do lots of activism on behalf of MRA organizations. Donate money, show up on protests and conferences. Paint a target on your back for tradcons and feminists to shoot at. Whenever attacked, claim that you support “gender equality” and love women.

The PUA script: bust your ass, work out like crazy, spend your free time learning all sorts of “valuable” skills, go on a diet, approach 10 women everyday, travel the Third World, brag about it all online, then move to the Philippines or Latvia when you’re tired of it all, then self-publish your memoirs in online format and sell it on Amazon.

The people pushing these scripts are all targeting the same demographic, young single betas, so they are in fierce competition. What is making their job even harder is that a growing segment of these betas are refusing to follow any script. This is making more and more people angry and frustrated, as evidenced by increasingly shrill public discourse about MGTOWs and the “Sexodus”. Young men are supposed to be dumb disposable shits, after all, and follow a script. But a growing number of them simply won’t do it.

Each of these groups is trying to draft young men as cannon fodder, and they’re all using the same tactic in trying to draft them, shaming language. However, it is not working. Most of these young men have never heard of MGTOW, yet they have decided to refuse to become cannon fodder for these groups, effectively becoming MGTOW.

Why are young men refusing to become cannon fodder in increasing numbers? First, the attacks on them are become more and more shrill which just steels their resolve to become cannon fodder. Each of the groups that want to use men as cannon fodder are not offering young men any incentives to follow them. There’s a saying that was said in the Soviet Union, “They pretend to pay us. We pretend to work.” Even the Soviets understood somewhat that incentives matter which is more than can be said for any of the groups that Hollenhund listed. Sending young men the equivalent of increasingly insane strong worded letters is not a strategy that will work to convince young men.

Why should a young man become cannon fodder for the indirect or direct benefit of women they are fed up with? Even if a young man is willing to sacrifice himself as cannon fodder, he isn’t going to sacrifice himself for a group he is fed up with and likely hates him. More and more young men are figuring this out and refuse to become cannon fodder.

Since Avengers: Age Of Ultron came out this weekend, this week on the blog with be Ultron week. All posts this week will be discussing various aspects of Ultron. (There are a aome spoilers for Avengers: Age Of Ultron. You have been warned.)

There’s a line in the movie (that also is in the trailers) that Ultron says, “You want to protect the world, but you don’t want it to change.” What Tony Stark and Bruce Banner wanted by creating Ultron was something that would allow everyone on Earth to ignore what was happening beyond Earth. Ultron would protect the world from alien threats so that everyone could live their lives as if the world had not changed. It turns out that trying to create such a protector is impossible. One of Ultron’s messages was that if humanity doesn’t evolve it will die. The movie is about his quest to force evolution in a manner similar to the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs. Vision, the good artificial intelligence, in the movie agrees with Ultron’s assessment that humanity will die if it doesn’t evolve. Vision just disagrees with Ultron’s methods of killing anyone to do it.

Women and manginas want an “Ultron” that will enforce the status quo. Their “Ultron” will force things to be like they were in 1987 or 1962 or some other date in the past forever. It will force men who are engaging in a marriage strike to marry, destroy MGTOW, and keep men in the dark about the real nature of women like previous generations of men were in the dark.

The problem is that in both cases creating an “Ultron” that will keep the world in a static state is impossible. What many men have discovered is that they need to evolve to survive. That evolution involves GTOW, refusing to marry, etc. Any attempt to create an “Ultron” that will end the marriage strike and MGTOW will fall victim to the same problem that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner had. It will just force more men to evolve faster. Everything from attempts to shame men who refuse to marry to college rape hysteria is an attempt at creating an “Ultron” who will enforce the misandrist status quo. However, it has not worked. More men just discovered the truth of how marriage is a bad deal for men, the false rape industry, and the real nature of women. All it has done is cause more men to evolve. That’s the problem for women and manginas. They want to keep the status quo, but they can’t stop evolution just like Tony Stark and Bruce Banner could not.

GunnerQ says “What we’re seeing is young men learning to turn off their sex drives for their own sanity.”

I’ve heard of this. On a recent camping trip, one of the guys was telling us about how his 28 year old son had started taking antidepressants. His son has never suffered from depression but told his dad he was able to say the right things and get a prescription. He’s taking them to try and kill his sex drive because he’s simply tired of pursing women with no success. The dad is upset and angry. His son is reasonably attractive, a working professional with a decent income, but all the girls he asks out turn him down, or if he does go out they want to have sex right away and his son wants to wait until marriage. So instead of being tempted with porn or fornication he’s cutting out the source of his temptation. We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?

I had expected to hear about this sort of thing sooner or later, but reading it is a bit of shock. It does make sense for the young man in the comment. He knows better than to get married, but because of his faith, other options aren’t available to him. I’m not sure if using antidepressants in this manner is a good idea, but given the constraints of his faith, this young man made a logical decision.

Mule, all Driscoll is asking is that young men learn a trade, put down the porn, and find a girl to marry–what responsible men have done since Creation, really. If that’s too much, you’ve just made Driscoll’s point.

Or, put in terms the actuaries might use for us, if you don’t marry and father some children, good luck having someone to change your bedpan when you’re too old to work and Medicare and Social Security have collapsed. Yes, getting married risks divorce in the next decade. Not getting married risks dying in misery a few more decades hence.

Discussion: Because marriage has turned into an anti-male institution, many men have knowingly or unknowing decided to go their own way and avoid marriage. In most cases, this will correspond with never having children. The (unmarried and childless) target is threatened with a calamity that will befall them when they are older due to their lack of marriage and children. Examples:

While there’s a risk of divorce in getting married in the next decade, there’s a risk of dying in misery with no one to change your bedpan when you’re elderly.

You will be trapped in a nursing home when you are older with no one to visit you.

You will die alone.

There will be no one to remember you after you are dead.

Your family will die out with you.

Response: There are two issues here, what happens before death and what happens after death. After death a man is not going to be around to care about if he has children or if anyone remembers him. Also, if a man wants to be remembered, he does not need children to accomplish that. Before death, the issue is one of frailty and long term care, not “dying alone”. This shaming language assumes that children will be caregivers for their elderly parents. There is no guarantee of this. In rare cases, children may die before their parents. It’s likely that children will dump their parents into a nursing home instead of providing elderly care themselves. Women may try to alienate children from their fathers, so men with children could easily be in the same situation as childless men. A man who falls victim to this type of shaming language is more likely to make a bad marriage decision like marrying a single mother. In this case, the children aren’t his and are likely to not care about long term care of an elderly man with who not related to them. Having children is not a guarantee of anything, and it’s more likely that a man will end up in a situation of getting divorced and having no one to “change his bedpan”.

This year there is an election for governor in the state of Virginia. The two main candidates are Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat, and Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican. Terry McAuliffe is known for being a major Democratic party fundraiser and has a long history of questionable business dealings. McAuliffe has no real platform so his campaign has resorted to using the mythical “war on women” to attack Cuccinelli with most of his attacks focused on abortion and birth control.

Invoking the nonexistent “war on women” is par for the course for Democrats. What is unique about McAuliffe campaign’s use of this tactic is that they are trying to connect Cuccinelli to fathers’ rights groups. Here is an example:

While it’s clear that Terry McAuliffe hates fathers to the point of not caring about being a father to his own kids, the views of his supporters on fathers are worse. The graphic shown above was posted to facebook, and here is the response from one of McAuliffe’s supporters:

I do not know him personally but any man who would delve into a womans issue such as child bearing and raising children is obviously insane.

This woman is saying that any man who wants to be a father to their children is insane. She believes that fatherhood should not exist (although it’s safe to assume that she doesn’t want to give up the gravy train of men paying child support).

To cover up McAuliffe’s deficiencies as a candidate for governor, his campaign has run the most anti-father (and anti-male) campaign in American history. Polls currently show that McAuliffe has a very comfortable lead over Cuccinelli. While there are other issues involved such as the recent government shutdown, this shows that McAuliffe’s anti-father bigotry resonates with a section of the electorate. The end result of McAuliffe getting elected will be than even more young men will decide that it’s too dangerous to become a father and to go their own way.

It’s an interesting commercial because it contains a lot of MGTOW ideas. The commercial has men buying this car without the approval of their wives and girlfriends. The wives and girlfriends all start going nuts and destroying things as a result. This is very unusual for a commercial since women control most consumer spending.

What I suspect we are seeing here is the beginning of commercials that target men who are either going their own way or at least not tied down to women. This is not the first commercial like this. We have already seen commercials that target single men for surrogacy services in India. With a growing population of men either going their own way or at the very least not getting married, these are the types of commercials that would start getting made. Many companies will want to tap the growing market of men who are not tied down to women.

The frequency of commercials like these are a good metric for seeing how men are increasingly either going their own way or at least rejecting marriage.

In this part of the internet there are many traditionalists and others who attack the idea of going ghost and try to promote marriage. They will repeatedly say that they are “defending marriage”. For those of us who know the score about marriage 2.0 and how marriage 1.0 is already dead in Western countries, these “defenders of marriage” are either intentionally or unintentionally pushing men into the feminist institution of marriage 2.0. Many of these “defenders of marriage” will claim that they are just trying to protect ”traditional marriage” (i.e. marriage 1.0) from those who are trying to “destroy marriage” (which typically means MRAs to them, even though MRAs aren’t trying to “destroy marriage,” but warn men of the dangers of marriage 2.0). How do we know whether these “defenders of marriage” are legitimate in their defense of marriage, or are just trying to force men to submit to a conservative/traditional form of feminism? The answer is the expat test.

In these arguments for and against marriage, the debate is presented as getting married vs. not getting married. This is an inaccurate way to frame how men are dealing with the current situation regarding marriage. There are more than just those two answers — there are actually three options:

Get married in a marriage 2.0 (feminist) country

Get married in a marriage 1.0 country (which by definition involves expating, because bringing a woman to a marriage 2.0 country ends up being option 1)

Don’t get married whether you expat or not

Anyone who claims to defend “traditional marriage” should love option 2. They should love the idea of a man making sure that he gets a traditional marriage by expating to a marriage 1.0 county. It shouldn’t matter to them where a traditional marriage happens as long as it happens. This objectively does more to preserve “traditional marriage” – by any definition that the “defenders of marriage” would use – than getting married in a marriage 2.0 country, which does nothing to preserve traditional marriage.

If you confront “defenders of marriage” with the expat test, what will their response be? Typically, they will be against the idea of a man expating to another country to enjoy a traditional marriage. They will come up with all sorts of nonsense to argue against expating to contract a marriage 1.0 arrangement. The arguments range from culture to, in extreme cases, white nationalism/racial obligations. In other words, in nearly all cases, a “defender of marriage” will fail the expat test, proving that their real goal has nothing to do with “traditional marriage;” instead, it is about placating the women in their churches and producing more babies. Their push for marriage is really about white knighting for women and/or their fear that their group or race is not having enough babies.

If you’re reading this, it’s likely none of this is is new to you. However, the expat test still has value because it can be used as a tool to prove objectively that nearly all “defenders of marriage” aren’t actually defending marriage, but have other goals, none of which take men’s interests into consideration.

Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democrats. The Democrats left me.” What feminists don’t realize is that men didn’t leave Western civilization. Western civilization left men. Because of feminism. Now they complain that they can’t find enough useful idiots.

This isn’t limited to just feminists. It’s true of any conservative female supremacist or other kind of fake anti-feminist as well. We hear a lot about men supposedly failing to mature, get married, “man up”, etc. as if men just decided one day that they weren’t going to bother anymore. That is not what happened. The opposite happened. The reason why increasing numbers of men are making the RATIONAL and LOGICAL decision to avoid marriage, high stress jobs, college, etc. is because Western Civilization has become increasingly hostile to men. Why support a civilization that actively hates you and over time increases its hate for you?

The complaints we hear about men whether it’s from Kay Hymowitz or from people complaining about comments at The Spearhead are all about the fact that they’re running out of useful idiots. Why are socons (social conservatives) from Mark Richardson to The (Not) Thinking Housewife saying, “There’s a problem with marriage but you are supposed to ‘man up’ and get married anyway because it’s your duty to God/Western Civilization/etc.?” Because all forms of female supermacism (both feminist and socon) need a supply of men working as useful idiots to keep everything running. The obvious answer is to bring Western Civilization back to men since men didn’t leave Western Civilization but if safe to say that won’t be happening. That would involve offering men something of equal value for their labor, skills, and commitment and no female supremacist of any stripe will negotiate in good faith with men.